Journal of athletic training · 2023
Reliability and Minimal Detectable Change of the Standardized Assessment of Reaction Time.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lempke Landon B, Shumski Eric J, Prato Thomas A, Lynall Robert C
Аннотация
CONTEXT: Postconcussion reaction time deficits are common, but existing assessments lack sport-related applicability. We developed the Standardized Assessment of Reaction Time (StART) tool to emulate the simultaneous cognitive and motor function demands in sport, but its reliability is unestablished.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the intrarater, interrater, and test-retest reliability of StART and to examine the dual-task effect, time effect, and relationships between StART and computerized and laboratory-based functional reaction time assessments.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.
SETTING: Clinical laboratory.
PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Twenty healthy, physically active individuals (age = 20.3 ± 1.8 years, females = 12, no concussion history = 75%).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Participants completed the StART, computerized reaction time (Stroop task via CNS Vital Signs), and laboratory-based jump landing and cutting reaction time under single-task and dual-task (subtracting by 6s or 7s) cognitive conditions at 2 testing sessions a median of 7 days apart. We used intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), repeated-measure analysis of variance, and Pearson r correlations to address our aims.
RESULTS: Overall, good to strong interrater (ICC [2,k] range = 0.83-0.97), intrarater (ICC [3,k] range = 0.91-0.98), and test-retest (ICC [3,k] range = 0.69-0.89) reliability were observed. A significant reaction time assessment-by-cognitive condition interaction was present (P = .018, ηp2 = 0.14), with StART having the largest dual-task effect. Main time effects for dual-task conditions were seen across all reaction time assessments (mean difference = -25 milliseconds, P = .026, ηp2 = 0.08) with improved performance at the second testing session. No StART outcomes correlated with computerized reaction time (P > .05), although some correlated with single-task (r range = 0.42-0.65) and dual-task (r range = 0.19-0.50) laboratory cutting reaction time.
CONCLUSIONS: The StART demonstrated overall reliable performance relative to other reaction time measures. Reliability coupled with a strong dual-task effect indicates that StART is a valid measure for examining functional reaction time and may have future utility for sport-related concussion return-to-play decision-making.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the intrarater, interrater, and test-retest reliability of StART and to examine the dual-task effect, time effect, and relationships between StART and computerized and laboratory-based functional reaction time assessments.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.
SETTING: Clinical laboratory.
PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Twenty healthy, physically active individuals (age = 20.3 ± 1.8 years, females = 12, no concussion history = 75%).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Participants completed the StART, computerized reaction time (Stroop task via CNS Vital Signs), and laboratory-based jump landing and cutting reaction time under single-task and dual-task (subtracting by 6s or 7s) cognitive conditions at 2 testing sessions a median of 7 days apart. We used intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), repeated-measure analysis of variance, and Pearson r correlations to address our aims.
RESULTS: Overall, good to strong interrater (ICC [2,k] range = 0.83-0.97), intrarater (ICC [3,k] range = 0.91-0.98), and test-retest (ICC [3,k] range = 0.69-0.89) reliability were observed. A significant reaction time assessment-by-cognitive condition interaction was present (P = .018, ηp2 = 0.14), with StART having the largest dual-task effect. Main time effects for dual-task conditions were seen across all reaction time assessments (mean difference = -25 milliseconds, P = .026, ηp2 = 0.08) with improved performance at the second testing session. No StART outcomes correlated with computerized reaction time (P > .05), although some correlated with single-task (r range = 0.42-0.65) and dual-task (r range = 0.19-0.50) laboratory cutting reaction time.
CONCLUSIONS: The StART demonstrated overall reliable performance relative to other reaction time measures. Reliability coupled with a strong dual-task effect indicates that StART is a valid measure for examining functional reaction time and may have future utility for sport-related concussion return-to-play decision-making.